6 ms·

>I think a reality that will hopefully soon catch up with societal stigma in the United States is that college isn't right for everyone. That's the problem, no

>I think a reality that will hopefully soon catch up with societal stigma in the United States is that college isn't right for everyone. That's the problem, not the solution. College should be for everyone. There's no reason why a person who becomes a plumber or peace corps volunteer or electrician can't also go to college and learn those things, among other topics. In 2015, only 33% of American adults had a college degree [0]. American adults are not over-educated, they're just over-charged for their education. [0]https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...

rguzman 10y ago
College != Education. Education should be for anyone who wants it. However, the returns on a college education (especially if the monetary costs are high) are highly dependent on the abilities (IQ, grit, conscientiousness, etc) of the individual in question. It is a bad investment for a lot of people.
rayiner 10y ago
College is a waste of time and money for almost everyone who attends . In the 1960's, less than 10% of Americans had college degrees. Yet, we still had engineers and accountants and insurance adjusters, etc. Very few people, even white collar workers, learn anything essential in college. The push for more and more college is a huge wealth transfer from the middle and lower-middle class to the upper-middle class professorial caste.
- throwawaysocks 10y ago
  > The push for more and more college is a huge wealth transfer from the middle and lower-middle class to the upper-middle class professorial caste. Hanlon begs that we consider the possibility that a pedestrian understanding of basic statistics and market forces are the more likely culprit for public perception. Aside, you've also picked the wrong boogeyman. Outside of the elite institutions, where the .01% of rock-star professors MAYBE make as much as a typical software developer at a top software firm, professors come in nowhere near upper-middle class. At typical institutions, they make mid-5 figures, have no upward mobility in their professions, and are a favorite target for pot shots and threats of funding cuts because everyone loves to hate them. In all, it's a pretty unappealing job outside of the social capital with traditional types and the carrot of tenure (which isn't nearly as permanent as it's often perceived). The financial industry and university managers that are benefiting from peddling of useless college degrees, not professors.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    You can throw administrators into "professorial caste" (though note that professors still dominate payroll at most places: http://data.richmond.com/salaries/2014/state/george-mason-university http://data.richmond.com/salaries/2014/state/george-mason-un...). And how is the financial industry benefitting from the peddling of useless college degrees? Private student loans only account for 8% of student loan debt (the federal government holds the rest).
    - throwawaysocks 10y ago
      > You can throw administrators into "professorial caste" That makes about as much sense as throwing the C-suite of a manufacturing company into the "laborer caste". Administrators these days mostly aren't former professors and have very different jobs. > Here are the salaries of professors at George Mason First and most important, GMU falls into that "elite" class I mentioned earlier. It's atypical; as an R1 institutions, their professors are paid on average far better than professors at the huge majority of higher ed institutions in the US. Outside of places like GMU, professors make closer to mid five figures. Again, we don't have to speculate. Use Google if you don't believe me. Even then, you'll notice my point still stands -- the reporting you linked to just completely tops out around the typical base salary of top tech firms. If professors are benefiting, they aren't exactly getting rich. > The payroll is dominated by professors 1. "Dominated" is a bit of a stretch. The page you link lists 4,043 employees, and other GMU data states there are 1,263 full-time instructors (which will include non-professors, BTW). 2. GMU has an atypically small student:teacher ratio. 3. It doesn't follow that professors benefiting the most from this growth. 4. At a place like GA, professors are also typically bringing in more money into the university in the form of grants. > And how is the financial industry benefitting from the peddling of useless college degrees? > Private student loans only account for 8% of student loan debt So "only" 80,000,000,000. Not to mention handling endowments, etc. How much do you want to bet there are 0.01%ers who made their wealth off of higher ed? Because those people almost surely exist, and sure as hell weren't professors...
      - rayiner 10y ago
- intopieces 10y ago
  >College is a waste of time and money for almost everyone who attends. The Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees [0], As do the hiring managers at even lower level positions [1] [0]http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm [1]http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/09/report-employers-want-more-college-graduates-for-lower-level-jobs http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/09/report-employ...
  - rayiner 10y ago
    Correlation, not causation. Going to college doesn't make someone smarter, harder working, or more ambitious. Employers just use it as a signal for those things.
    - intopieces 10y ago
      >Going to college doesn't make someone smarter, harder working, or more ambitious. And the BLS didn't measure those qualities, they measured earnings and unemployment. I suppose it's a waste of time if you don't value money or being employed. Since 3 out of 4 adults reported that money is the primary cause of stress in their lives [0]...it seems that doing the thing that makes it less likely to be unemployed might not be a waste of time after all. [0]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-biggest-cause-of-stress-in-america-today/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-biggest-cause-of-stress-in-a...

rguzman 10y ago

College != Education. Education should be for anyone who wants it. However, the returns on a college education (especially if the monetary costs are high) are highly dependent on the abilities (IQ, grit, conscientiousness, etc) of the individual in question. It is a bad investment for a lot of people.

rayiner 10y ago

College is a waste of time and money for almost everyone who attends . In the 1960's, less than 10% of Americans had college degrees. Yet, we still had engineers and accountants and insurance adjusters, etc. Very few people, even white collar workers, learn anything essential in college. The push for more and more college is a huge wealth transfer from the middle and lower-middle class to the upper-middle class professorial caste.

throwawaysocks 10y ago
> The push for more and more college is a huge wealth transfer from the middle and lower-middle class to the upper-middle class professorial caste. Hanlon begs that we consider the possibility that a pedestrian understanding of basic statistics and market forces are the more likely culprit for public perception. Aside, you've also picked the wrong boogeyman. Outside of the elite institutions, where the .01% of rock-star professors MAYBE make as much as a typical software developer at a top software firm, professors come in nowhere near upper-middle class. At typical institutions, they make mid-5 figures, have no upward mobility in their professions, and are a favorite target for pot shots and threats of funding cuts because everyone loves to hate them. In all, it's a pretty unappealing job outside of the social capital with traditional types and the carrot of tenure (which isn't nearly as permanent as it's often perceived). The financial industry and university managers that are benefiting from peddling of useless college degrees, not professors.
- rayiner 10y ago
  You can throw administrators into "professorial caste" (though note that professors still dominate payroll at most places: http://data.richmond.com/salaries/2014/state/george-mason-university http://data.richmond.com/salaries/2014/state/george-mason-un...). And how is the financial industry benefitting from the peddling of useless college degrees? Private student loans only account for 8% of student loan debt (the federal government holds the rest).
  - throwawaysocks 10y ago
    > You can throw administrators into "professorial caste" That makes about as much sense as throwing the C-suite of a manufacturing company into the "laborer caste". Administrators these days mostly aren't former professors and have very different jobs. > Here are the salaries of professors at George Mason First and most important, GMU falls into that "elite" class I mentioned earlier. It's atypical; as an R1 institutions, their professors are paid on average far better than professors at the huge majority of higher ed institutions in the US. Outside of places like GMU, professors make closer to mid five figures. Again, we don't have to speculate. Use Google if you don't believe me. Even then, you'll notice my point still stands -- the reporting you linked to just completely tops out around the typical base salary of top tech firms. If professors are benefiting, they aren't exactly getting rich. > The payroll is dominated by professors 1. "Dominated" is a bit of a stretch. The page you link lists 4,043 employees, and other GMU data states there are 1,263 full-time instructors (which will include non-professors, BTW). 2. GMU has an atypically small student:teacher ratio. 3. It doesn't follow that professors benefiting the most from this growth. 4. At a place like GA, professors are also typically bringing in more money into the university in the form of grants. > And how is the financial industry benefitting from the peddling of useless college degrees? > Private student loans only account for 8% of student loan debt So "only" 80,000,000,000. Not to mention handling endowments, etc. How much do you want to bet there are 0.01%ers who made their wealth off of higher ed? Because those people almost surely exist, and sure as hell weren't professors...
    - rayiner 10y ago
intopieces 10y ago
>College is a waste of time and money for almost everyone who attends. The Bureau of Labor Statistics disagrees [0], As do the hiring managers at even lower level positions [1] [0]http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm [1]http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/09/report-employers-want-more-college-graduates-for-lower-level-jobs http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/09/report-employ...
- rayiner 10y ago
  Correlation, not causation. Going to college doesn't make someone smarter, harder working, or more ambitious. Employers just use it as a signal for those things.
  - intopieces 10y ago
    >Going to college doesn't make someone smarter, harder working, or more ambitious. And the BLS didn't measure those qualities, they measured earnings and unemployment. I suppose it's a waste of time if you don't value money or being employed. Since 3 out of 4 adults reported that money is the primary cause of stress in their lives [0]...it seems that doing the thing that makes it less likely to be unemployed might not be a waste of time after all. [0]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-biggest-cause-of-stress-in-america-today/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-biggest-cause-of-stress-in-a...